With the Mujahideen (Taliban and al-Qaeda), it was obvious: attack the Soviets.
But why ISIS? When they overthrew Saddam, why would they fund a group that would attack their own puppet government?
With the Mujahideen (Taliban and al-Qaeda), it was obvious: attack the Soviets.
But why ISIS? When they overthrew Saddam, why would they fund a group that would attack their own puppet government?
In The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key figure in shaping US policy thinking last century and this no doubt, it’s mentioned that there is region, a triangle of critical control in the middle east that can prevent the uniting of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It is the cross-roads of all these three and although I’m not sure he mentions destabilization, he does mention control and one way to control a region or at least deny its usefulness to others is to destabilize it with terrorism and extremism. To that end the US wants to prevent China and Russia from having good healthy relationships and trade with Africa and Europe because that’s land-power that locks the US, far across the oceans, entirely out. That’s a potential that would destroy any hopes for US hegemony.
Made me think of the BRI. At most, it seems like a stall tactic for the US to back extremists. The pendulum is already swinging back against the west. Ground is being lost in the Middle-East and Africa. VEO’s csn certainly stir the pot and muddy the waters, but for how long?